The sci-fi movie George Lucas knew ‘Star Wars’ could never beat: “Far superior”
Many of the great directors are constantly pitted against each other, with people comparing the impact of new Hollywood directors such as Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese and Peter Bogdanovich. But when two directors are making a film of a similar genre, it’s no wonder that people love to discuss the failings and similarities of both films, holding up the work of Kubrick and comparing it with Jonathan Glazer, or looking at the similarities between Jane Schoenbrun and David Lynch or Tsai-Ming Liang and Chantal Akerman.
But during the New Hollywood Movement, in which directors had an unprecedented level of clout and power, perhaps they weren’t fond of being compared to their sometimes more successful counterparts, with one director accepting defeat and claiming that his film would never compare to the work of one of the greatest auteurs.
Stanely Kubrick is often heralded as the greatest director of all time, with an expansive and ever-evolving body of work that was, in many ways, completely ahead of its time. Whether the director was articulating his unique style through horror, comedy or enigmatic dramas, each film provides an insight into a mind that was overflowing with creativity, expressing this through the mysteries of Eyes Wide Shut, the camera work in The Shining and the biting social commentary within Barry Lyndon.
However, he is most often praised for the revolutionary impact of 2001: A Space Odyssey, with the film providing an early insight into a future dominated by technology and the consequences of becoming dependent on artificial intelligence. Through a spell-binding visual style and extensively created sets, the film broke records as one of the most mystifying and mesmerising films of all time.
George Lucas, however, might have been worried that the accomplishments of the space drama would outshine the impact of Star Wars, but the director later shared his thoughts on the film and how his beloved franchise couldn’t hold a light next to it.
When discussing this, Lucas said, “I am fairly pleased that they haven’t compared it that much to 2001. Actually it is being compared more to westerns than 2001, which is really what it should be. On a technical level, it can be compared, but personally I think that 2001 is far superior. You know it had ten times more money and time and obviously it came out better.”
The director continued, lamenting the direct correlation between making science fiction pop on the screen and the budget available: “In special effects, one of the key elements is time and money. Most of those special effects in Star Wars were first-time special effects – we shot them, we composited them and they’re in the movie. We had to go back and reshoot some, but in order to get special effects right, you really should shoot them two or three times before you figure out exactly how it should work, which is why it costs so much money…. we did a lot of work but there is nothing that I would like to do more than go back and redo all the special effects, have a little more time”.
While it sounds a lot like excuses and as though Lucas is implying that his film isn’t as good due to budgetary complaints, he also acknowledges that Kubrick’s masterpiece is far superior, despite his shaky grasp on why it is infinitely better. Kubrick is simply trying to say a lot more through his work, and no amount of money could add the same intellectual stance to Lucas’ work.
